Final Exam

Response #1
In one of my previous posts, I took Langdon Winner's view of technology and its effects on education. While Winner seems to take a more critical stance, there are many out there with opposing viewpoints.
The Department of Education even devotes an entire section of their website to the benefits of technology in the classroom. According to Ed.gov, "New ways of obtaining and presenting information have given students powerful new ways of analyzing and understanding the world around them."
There are areas in which I disagree with the use of technology in the classroom. I, like Winner, am afraid of the isolation and depersonalization things such as distance learning could emphasize. However, there are relevant positive aspects from those in favor of technology in the classroom. For example, one high school science teacher points out, "Instead of reading about the human circulatory system and seeing textbook pictures depicting bloodflow, students can use technology to see blood moving through veins and arteries, watch the process of oxygen entering the bloodstream, and experiment to understand the effects of increased pulse or cholesterol-filled arteries on blood flow."
Teachers also point out the aid technology has in tutoring students in certain subjects, such as math. CD-roms designed to "spit out" drills on such things as long division or the times table provide instant feedback, and according to one elementary teacher "increase self-esteem."
One benefit pointed out that I hadn't previously thought of was, "Hearing disabled students can master complex problem solving skills on the computer as easily as those without a disability."
Hopefully, educators and administrators will continue to evaluate the positive and negative effects of technology in the classroom, not only to raise standardized test scores, but also to raise "book smart" children.

Response #2
1. A robot must never harm a human or allow one to be harmed through inaction.
2. A robot must obey any command given by a human, unless this violates Rule 1.
3. A robot must protect itself from harm, unless this violates Rule 1 or 2.
Asmov's Laws of Robotics
I wonder what Donna Haraway would think of these "convenient" rules? According to Haraway, "A cyborg is a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction. Social reality is lived social relations, our most important political construction, a world-changing fiction."
Overall, Haraway seems quite fond of cyborgs and their implications for the future, but even she, hereself, states, "Cyborgs are never entirely trustworthy creatures." In my opinion, Haraway offers good suggestions when it comes to the integration of cyborgs in society. She points out that, as creators, we have a responsibility to these beings. However, there are those who completely reject Haraway's ideas and suggestions. There are many who insist that the creation of cyborgs should be forgotten and never mentioned. Critics of cyborgs argue, "Technology will intrude into the hitherto sacred space of the human body." In an ideal world, much like the one Haraway describes, it would be nice to say that we should be careful about how much intelligence we put in robots, but in reality, there will always be people pushing the boundaries too far, and to what expemse?
It is important to keep in mind, "For everything computers and technology can do for us, there is something that can be done to us."
"For every vision of digital heaven," warns Arthur Kroker, "there is an equal image of digital hell."